<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Defending the General Assembly</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bearingdrift.com/2009/07/27/defending-the-general-assembly/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bearingdrift.com/2009/07/27/defending-the-general-assembly/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 04:12:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Kirwin</title>
		<link>http://bearingdrift.com/2009/07/27/defending-the-general-assembly/#comment-19594</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Kirwin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:30:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bearingdrift.com/?p=7790#comment-19594</guid>
		<description>Don&#039;t put quotes around things that paraphrase what I wrote.

However, I&#039;ve noted your satisfaction with how wonderfully efficient government regulations are.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&#8217;t put quotes around things that paraphrase what I wrote.</p>
<p>However, I&#8217;ve noted your satisfaction with how wonderfully efficient government regulations are.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Foobar</title>
		<link>http://bearingdrift.com/2009/07/27/defending-the-general-assembly/#comment-19593</link>
		<dc:creator>Foobar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:55:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bearingdrift.com/?p=7790#comment-19593</guid>
		<description>You did state that &quot;the gubmint does not need more money for roads. Its the permitting, regs, and other gubmint requirements.&quot; Do we scrub the EPA reviews? Deep six local referendums that may care to weigh in? Slash the bidding process and fasttrack the awards? Limit the design and review processes?  Ignore established zoning regs? 

Certainly with your claim that money is not needed and that regs are the problem, you have identified those specific regs that when quashed will lead us to a more better transportation mecca.  Or is this perhaps a simple &quot;Gubmint bad!&quot; schpeil void of specifics?  With tax revenues in the toilet, i think its a valid point to say that our current trans problems will remain with us for maaany years. and its very valid to say no more taxes and no more tax increases.  I for one dont want my taxes raised. However, i  think its invalid to say that to FIX the problem... 1) we do not need money and 2) lets just cut the (generic, ill-defined) red tape.  The honest take would be 1) no more taxes &amp; no more tax increases and 2) get used to the traffic woes cuz we aint doing anything about them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You did state that &#8220;the gubmint does not need more money for roads. Its the permitting, regs, and other gubmint requirements.&#8221; Do we scrub the EPA reviews? Deep six local referendums that may care to weigh in? Slash the bidding process and fasttrack the awards? Limit the design and review processes?  Ignore established zoning regs? </p>
<p>Certainly with your claim that money is not needed and that regs are the problem, you have identified those specific regs that when quashed will lead us to a more better transportation mecca.  Or is this perhaps a simple &#8220;Gubmint bad!&#8221; schpeil void of specifics?  With tax revenues in the toilet, i think its a valid point to say that our current trans problems will remain with us for maaany years. and its very valid to say no more taxes and no more tax increases.  I for one dont want my taxes raised. However, i  think its invalid to say that to FIX the problem&#8230; 1) we do not need money and 2) lets just cut the (generic, ill-defined) red tape.  The honest take would be 1) no more taxes &amp; no more tax increases and 2) get used to the traffic woes cuz we aint doing anything about them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Kirwin</title>
		<link>http://bearingdrift.com/2009/07/27/defending-the-general-assembly/#comment-19584</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Kirwin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:55:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bearingdrift.com/?p=7790#comment-19584</guid>
		<description>Mr. or Mrs. Bar, 

You really should see the show.  That way you won&#039;t have to &quot;suggest&quot; what my position is and get it wrong.

I see a problem when it takes 2 and a half decades to approve and build a runway.  I see a problem when it takes 18 years to build a tunnel even with full funding.  

If you think that&#039;s optimum performance, we&#039;ll disagree.

If you think people want their taxes increased, we&#039;ll disagree.

I never said that fixing stupid, hurtful and destructive regulations, studies and requirements would build roads for free.

But in one case, it practically does.  The Jordan Bridge was proposed to be built with 100% private money, until government and the organizations that review these proposals said the bridge needed to be much more costly, much higher than the previous bridge...yadda, yadda.

Government is making these things more difficult, and since we in Hampton Roads have a whole lot of water, our costs and difficulty are much worse.

The Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel was opened 8 years after the first study began, and was built with ZERO taxpayer dollars.

The Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel was Phase 1 was paid with toll bonds, and completed with 90% federal funding and 10% state.

Now, the proposed Third Crossing is supposed to take 18 years and Virginia or Hampton Roads pays for the whole thing?

Since when?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr. or Mrs. Bar, </p>
<p>You really should see the show.  That way you won&#8217;t have to &#8220;suggest&#8221; what my position is and get it wrong.</p>
<p>I see a problem when it takes 2 and a half decades to approve and build a runway.  I see a problem when it takes 18 years to build a tunnel even with full funding.  </p>
<p>If you think that&#8217;s optimum performance, we&#8217;ll disagree.</p>
<p>If you think people want their taxes increased, we&#8217;ll disagree.</p>
<p>I never said that fixing stupid, hurtful and destructive regulations, studies and requirements would build roads for free.</p>
<p>But in one case, it practically does.  The Jordan Bridge was proposed to be built with 100% private money, until government and the organizations that review these proposals said the bridge needed to be much more costly, much higher than the previous bridge&#8230;yadda, yadda.</p>
<p>Government is making these things more difficult, and since we in Hampton Roads have a whole lot of water, our costs and difficulty are much worse.</p>
<p>The Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel was opened 8 years after the first study began, and was built with ZERO taxpayer dollars.</p>
<p>The Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel was Phase 1 was paid with toll bonds, and completed with 90% federal funding and 10% state.</p>
<p>Now, the proposed Third Crossing is supposed to take 18 years and Virginia or Hampton Roads pays for the whole thing?</p>
<p>Since when?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Foobar</title>
		<link>http://bearingdrift.com/2009/07/27/defending-the-general-assembly/#comment-19582</link>
		<dc:creator>Foobar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:24:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bearingdrift.com/?p=7790#comment-19582</guid>
		<description>Brian, regrettably i missed the NPR show.  And the firewall prevents listening now.  But from your post here, your solution is the slashing of &quot;permitting, regulation and other government requirements&quot;?  With the state&#039;s coffers beyond empty, can you quantify the monies that would be made available if we slashed road construction regulations?  Exactly which regulations are you referring to?  I would suggest that your position is simply to leave our road situation as is, shrouded instead in a &quot;cut gubmint red tape to pay for addressing our trans problems&quot; unicorn hope-ology.  Frankly, a &quot;no new taxes, leave the transportation problems as they are&quot; position is a more honest position than claiming hundreds of millions can be found under the state&#039;s regulation couch cushions.   Unless of course your quantification of reg slashing results in major coin.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brian, regrettably i missed the NPR show.  And the firewall prevents listening now.  But from your post here, your solution is the slashing of &#8220;permitting, regulation and other government requirements&#8221;?  With the state&#8217;s coffers beyond empty, can you quantify the monies that would be made available if we slashed road construction regulations?  Exactly which regulations are you referring to?  I would suggest that your position is simply to leave our road situation as is, shrouded instead in a &#8220;cut gubmint red tape to pay for addressing our trans problems&#8221; unicorn hope-ology.  Frankly, a &#8220;no new taxes, leave the transportation problems as they are&#8221; position is a more honest position than claiming hundreds of millions can be found under the state&#8217;s regulation couch cushions.   Unless of course your quantification of reg slashing results in major coin.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Transportation forever more - Virginia Free Press</title>
		<link>http://bearingdrift.com/2009/07/27/defending-the-general-assembly/#comment-19566</link>
		<dc:creator>Transportation forever more - Virginia Free Press</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:13:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bearingdrift.com/?p=7790#comment-19566</guid>
		<description>[...] will have the same makeup as before and the House will only change slightly. I have to agree with Brian Kirwin &#8211; the public isn&#8217;t going to clamour for increased taxes to pay for roads. As much as [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] will have the same makeup as before and the House will only change slightly. I have to agree with Brian Kirwin &#8211; the public isn&#8217;t going to clamour for increased taxes to pay for roads. As much as [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

